Elements of Reform
The . . . purposes of the Oregon juvenile
justice system . . . are to protect the public and
reduce juvenile delinquency and to provide fair
and impartial procedures for the initiation,
adjudication and disposition of allegations of
delinquent conduct. The system is founded on
the principles of personal responsibility,
accountability and reformation within the context of public
safety and restitution to the victims and to the
community. The system shall provide a continuum of
services that emphasize prevention of further criminal activity by the use of early and
certain sanctions, reformation and rehabilitation
programs and swift and decisive intervention in delinquent behavior. The system shall be
open and accountable to the people of Oregon and their elected representatives.
[Emphasis added.]383
S. 1 prescribed and authorized sweeping changes
in Oregon's juvenile justice system. At the heart of
the measure was a philosophical reorientation of
that
system. The preamble of S. 1 reflected a shift from
a rehabilitation- and restoration-oriented juvenile
justice system to one of accountability and
punishment.384
The State's juvenile corrections system was a
particular target of Oregon's juvenile justice
system reform initiative. "Juvenile corrections is the
orphan of both our child welfare and criminal justice
systems . . . [w]henever a choice is made about
resources for adult corrections, child welfare or juvenile
corrections, juvenile corrections ends up at the
bottom of the list," Attorney General Kulongoski
stated.385
The juvenile corrections system must become
"the advocate for the bad
kid,"386
he asserted, by ensuring that there are certain and consistent responses to the youth's actions.
To provide separate and independent status for
juvenile corrections in the State, the bill called for
the creation of a Department of Youth Authority
(DYA) that would ensure, as its central mission,
that adequate, available funding and administrative
resources would be focused on juvenile
crime.387
This action would elevate responsibility for oversight
of juvenile corrections from an office within the
Child Services Division of the Oregon Department
of Human Resources to executive cabinet-level
status.388
S. 1 also authorized the construction and
operation of regional maximum security juvenile
corrections facilities to provide the highest level of custody
and staff supervision in the State's juvenile justice
system.389
It also provided the newly created
DYA emergency siting authority to expedite the
location and construction of these secure
facilities.390
Under S. 1, the State's juvenile code was
amended to expand the list of serious and violent crimes
for which a juvenile must be prosecuted as an adult
to include aggravated murder; conspiracy,
solicitation, and attempt to commit aggravated murder; and
conspiracy, solicitation, and attempt to commit
murder.391 S. 1 also amended existing law to
require adult prosecution for 12-year-olds charged
with aggravated murder, murder, or one of the
forcible sex offenses,392 and to allow public access to
most393 juvenile records, specifically information in those records concerning the juvenile's name and date
of birth; the act that the juvenile is alleged to
have committed; the date, time, and location of any
proceeding against the juvenile; and the disposition
of any petition filed against the juvenile.394
Equalizing Service Needs. S. 1 also called for
the creation of a multitier infrastructure for its
juvenile justice system. This strategy would provide a
broad range of disposition options and services for
juvenile offenders in addition to providing services to
those youth who would require placement in secure
juvenile facilities.395
With their proposal to create a multitier system
of services for juvenile offenders, the Governor's
Task Force on Juvenile Justice and the State
legislature balanced the call for tougher sanctions for
repeat juvenile offenders with a commitment to provide
the same level of program and services at each tier of
the juvenile justice system. "The difference between
each tier of the system is the level of security and
direct supervision required and provided. Each tier
will have the same core programs, services, and
policy," the task force explained in its
recommendations.396
The consensus of advocacy groups opposed to the initiative to create a punishment-centered
juvenile justice system was that by increasing the "back
end" of the system, the task force was ensuring that
these youth would not improve their chances of
reforming.397
The task force's recommendation to
equalize services at all levels of security in the juvenile
justice system was an attempt to balance the focus on
punishment by responding to the concerns of
advocates that Oregon's juvenile justice system provide a
broad continuum of services for juvenile
offenders.398
To further its objective to create a multitier
juvenile justice system, S. 1 authorized the operation of
youth corrections assessment centers at each
regional maximum security juvenile corrections facility
to provide accurate, thorough screening and
evaluation of young offenders in order to ensure
appropriate placement within the
system.399
S. 1 also called for the creation of youth accountability camps and
restitution centers to provide a highly structured
regimen of work, physical and mental discipline,
and community service sanctions to instill a work
ethic, build vocational skills, and develop individual
accountability and responsibility through payment
of restitution to both the victim and the
community.400
In addition, S. 1 provided for the creation of
regional residential academies to provide
year-round educational, vocational, and life-skills training
on secure, closed campuses,401
while authorizing
DYA to contract with counties to handle services for
and supervision of first-time, nonviolent juvenile offenders.
Finally, S. 1 created a sentencing review
procedure for juveniles sentenced as adults for nonviolent
offenses. Under the second-look procedure, the sentencing court would review the progress of
eligible juveniles in the custody of DYA who had served
at least one-half of the sentence imposed. The
court would determine further commitment or
appropriate disposition.402
The sentencing court would have
the option of continuing the juvenile's sentence as
imposed or ordering the juvenile's conditional
release under the supervision of the Oregon Department
of Corrections. The juvenile would have the right
to counsel and to examine witnesses and records offered in evidence during the hearing. The
Department of Corrections would have the right to appeal
a sentencing court's decision to place a juvenile
on conditional release.403
The Reform Strategy
The engine of Oregon's far-reaching juvenile
justice reform initiative was the Governor's Task Force
on Juvenile Justice, created by former Governor
Barbara Roberts. Under Executive Order 9401, issued by Governor Roberts in January 1994,
the task force "was directed to examine Oregon's
juvenile justice system, to identify the components of
the system that are working and those that were
not, and to help amend and reform the system to
meet current and future needs."404
Attorney General Kulongoski was appointed task force chair by Governor Roberts and authorized
to appoint the other task force members, who
included the president of the State Senate, two circuit
court judges, the State police superintendent, a local
chief of police, a law professor, a private attorney, and
a businessman.
The task force was aided in its work by 10
subcommittees and working groups involving more than
80 individuals. Between January 1994 and the
release of its final report a year later, the task force and
its subgroups met 52 times. The task force accepted
as its mission the drafting of a comprehensive and specific blueprint for reform of the State's
juvenile justice system. That blueprint would be based
on seven standards and principles: